**Important Message to ALL my fellow Conservatives** (please read)

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I think the Republicans of the modern age are nothing but a bunch of faux-Christian hawk democrats.

No, they are just lousy fuax Christian Neo-Con hawks with a PNAC agenda.

If there was anything close to being a Democrat in any of them I am sure they would have gotten a lot more support from the left than they have.

When we have a malicious group of neo-cons in the white house like we have for the last eight years their true colors shine through no matter what
they say. When this happens it doesn't make them democrats by default.

Just like I said, "Them against Us". Your entire response is based on your ideology, political disposition, and assumption that I'm a Democrat.
You did not deliver an objective response, whereas I did. Therefore, the way that you perceived my response is that I referred to you as a
"neocon". You said it at least twice. More them against us; in other words, I'm against you.

For the record, I did not refer to you as a neocon. Especially since you made it plainly clear that you are not.

What is unclear is why you would be on the defensive about claims that I did not make.

Fact of the matter is that I'm not the only one who interpreted your OP as being nothing more than conservative versus liberal blame game. Perhaps
you should reread your OP in an attempt to discern why members of your audience would, in your opinion, misunderstand you.

What you said was, "It's time for the "Neoconservative" movement to be put back in its bottle and go back to the Democratic Party where it
belongs."

Now you can say that the neoconservative movement came about out of some types of historical leftist ideology, but leftist ideology does not
necessarily equate with liberalism or the Democratic Party, any more than rightist ideology necessarily equates with conservatism and the Republican
Party.

However, "neoconservatism" as it exists today in America bears many Italian fascist principles. Militarism, nationalism, corporatism,
anti-liberalism. The movement promotes that idea of perpetual war by instigating conflict under preemptive doctrine. Demanding compliance and
submission through threat of force, rather than resolution through diplomacy. Bush's message that patriots do not question and challenge government
under his authority; "You're either with us or against us." Then there's the undoubted support of the military-industrial complex, the Military
Commissions Act of 2006, the Patriot Act, and Bush's secret executive order authorizing domestic spying by the NSA.

The fact of the matter is that you do not concede that you are in fault in any way to the demise of your party or politics or ideology. It is at
least not evident in your OP. You blame neoconservatives, you blame liberals, you blame competing ideologies, but you don't blame yourself for
taking part in the neocon agenda. Maybe you didn't vote for Reagan-Bush, Bush-Quayle, Bush-Cheney, or McCain-Palin. And if that is true, what have
you personally done beyond flag waving to offset the neocon agenda?

I presented examples of perceived victimization that the neocons took advantage of in the conservative base. (It was not a comparison of liberal
versus conservative perceived victimization, as you made it out to be.) Once the neoconservatives were successful with that, the GOP as a whole
backed them. And they used their leverage in the House and Senate to bully Democrats into voting for their policies. Where was the movement within
the conservative and GOP mass that sought to offset the neoconservative agenda? Why was it so easy for the neoconservatives to win so many minds, so
quickly?

You make it seem as if a sizable and influential portion of the conservative base and GOP held the traditional notions of conservative ideology
previous to the neoconservative infiltration. If that were true, why were the neocons so successful in usurping those ideals?

I submitted that it was because of the conservative and GOP mindset. And that mindset was expressed in the mutually shared "them against us" ethos.
Also, the self-righteousness of conservatives and the GOP made them vulnerable to the neoconservatives. The neo-conservatives believe that they are
right, and that those who are against them are wrong; that anything that is different from the ideals that they hold are wrong. Many conservatives
and members of the GOP believe the same thing.

Liberals by definition are open to alternate and opposing ideas. Though, their being open to alternate and opposing ideas does not necessarily mean
that they are vulnerable to those ideas. This openness is one of the reasons that liberals are often portrayed as being unorganized and weak, when in
fact this flexibility is a virtue and a strength. Ideally liberals apply the solution that best fits the situation, even if continuity or traditional
values might be lost. Having this mindset does not make the liberal base a likely cause of neoconservatism or a wellspring of fascist idealism. Let
alone a prime target for neoconservative evangelism.

So, if you want to continue partisan bickering, that's fine. Just don't expect all others to notice that it is anything more than that.

I stand humbly corrected my friend. I still don't like the idea of saying it was the 'democrats'. If this is indeed the case then why hasn't the
true conservative movement done the same to the democrats? You see, it's a two way street and we know full well what politicians are capable of.

However, I must admit that you make a pretty sound argument. I just want to get back to what I know is good for this country. We are in for quite a
few rough years here and I fear this country, as it stands today, may not survive.

Actually, I think he has something there. We have a saying down here that the closest alligator is the biggest.

I do not propose just going around smacking folks you don't like, but there are currently two rogue nations that have a history of instability,
extreme nationalism, and/or aggressiveness.

Russia though the biggest is not the closest. We'll continue to play our games as the Russian culture is always about 75 years behind the
initiatives that other Western nations have already adapted and embraced.

Currently Iran and North Korea are a seeping sore on humanity and a threat to the national security of the United States.

To suggest a preemptive strike may cost 10 million American lives is to ignore the possibility that to let them pursue their current radical Islamic
war on mankind, especially the US, and possibly even more American lives a little further down the road.

If someone is beligerent, threatening, and begging for a fight at the drop of the hat, it's sometimes best to throw your hat off while they are still
taking off their jacket, and hit him square in the mouth with everything you have.

This premise of warfare has been one of the most basic fundamental principles of successfully conducting warfare since the first recorded battle in
1479 BC. All of the Masters of Warfare share this identical, same principle. When you see these very same principles embraced by the most successful
military leaders, though separated by nationality, continent, and millennia, then you can be reasonably certain that it works.

You are obviously very versed in the ways of defense/offense but this is
a new century where a halfassed biochemist could brew up a deadly concoction that would/could completely shut down an entire Continent or the world if
carried on the jetstreme. A weapon that would kill or make the survivors pray for death. A veritable doomsday weapon.

This bio/chem weapon could be manufactured in a motor home. Suitcase nukes are old technology and obsolete and fairly easily detected. BioChem on
the other hand could masquerade as cans of coffee or a sack of drywall compound.

So wouldn't it make sense to explore diplomacy instead of continually flexing our nuclear muscles and military might ala neocon chicken hawks. Just
a thought.

I sincerely hope that the new administration will direct us toward peace, but not appeasement, instead of of involving our precious youth in stupid
wars without so much as an exit strategy. Perhaps I hope for the unattainable but Hope springs eternal.

Of course. There are more ways to get dead than Carter has little liver pills.

I mean, you can find fear in a glass of water. A breath of air. But why worry about potential dangers when we have obvious dangers right now?

The Masters learned long ago that prudence requires of you an ability to perceive when a fight will eventually become unavoidable. When this
determination is made, to hesitate is to become prey. They discovered, and then it has been proven time and again that when you do fight, you engage
fully, thoroughly, and obtain a quick victory. A victory where your enemy is so undone, with suitable ruthlessness, that many future conflicts are
avoided due to your absolute credibility.

The conservative by definition will always desire peace, but not at the cost of your benefit, freedom, or lives.

The problem today is that we haven't gone to the source root of our problems that originate from external sources.

If there are too many leaves on the tree to pluck, and thus kill, sometimes you must go to the trunk.

Nothing magic, nothing new. Just old-fashioned common sense, which apparently isn't so common anymore. A good, conservative approach, where we
don't go looking for trouble, but if someone comes a-wanting, we should give them a sufficient amount of quick, ruthless destruction so that they
don't go away disappointed.

Thus, all nations will desire to be your friends, and avoid becoming your enemy.

Originally posted by dooper,
Thus, all nations will desire to be your friends, and avoid becoming your enemy.

Nations, perhaps but what about ideologies that are more like a mushroom colony than a tree with leaves; dormant mycilia under the ground hidden
until the climate and environment is right to flourish above the surface. A little know fact; mushrooms are the largest life form on the planet,
sometime 1000s of acres all hidden. The visible reproductive organs a tiny, tiny part of the over all plant.

This is what we are dealing with currently. A loose affiliation of disparate groups spread all over the globe with no allegiance to any geography but
connected. The intelligence agency's have finally met their match and they know it. Go see "Body of Lies" in a theater near you. Fiction, but
more real than you can imagine.

Doesn't anyone read anymore? The Neocons came from the left. See here and here Google the research yourself.
Surely you JEST. good Gawd, man, what rock did you find THAT under???
the truth is, Neoconservatives are ULTRA-CONSERVATIVES. They believe in the supremacy of the Conservative paradigm which includes self sufficiency of
the individual, tax breaks for the wealthy (in the retarded belief in the trickle down theory promulgated by Reagan), and a buildup of resources for
military.

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of the social liberalism, moral relativism, and New
Left counterculture of the 1960s.[citation needed] In the United States, neoconservatives align themselves with mainstream conservative values, such
as the free market, limited welfare, and traditional cultural values.[citation needed] Their key distinction is in international affairs, where they
prefer an interventionist approach that seeks to defend national interests.[citation needed]

The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right".[1][2] Michael Harrington, a democratic
socialist, coined the usage of neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[3] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent
neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about."[4]

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term and considered its founder is Irving Kristol, father of William Kristol, who would become the
founder of the neoconservative Project for the New American Century, and wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a
True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"[1] Kristol's ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter
magazine.[5] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a
neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".[6][7] The Reagan Doctrine
was considered anti-Communist and in opposition to Soviet Union global influence and considered central to American foreign policy until the end of
the Cold War, shortly before Bill Clinton became president of the United States. Neoconservative influence on American foreign policy later became
central with the Bush Doctrine.[citation needed]
more later...

like many have stated-----i believe in conservative beliefs-----and apparently that's not the current repub. party----although we're led to believe
it is,,, or in their aka bush,current party,,, eyes they want it to be!!!!
so i'm a conservative,,, not a republican

and granted the one guy who really believed and follows those rules was laughed at and wrote off early in the primaries--- ron paul

also--- i watched the libertarian primary-----all were great and i agreed whole-heartedly----as i yelled "yes",,,"exactly" and "hell yes" at the
tv
screen

it's a shame they have no chance,,,, no coverage, exposure and never will be allowed to if repub/dems have their way---it's a money game

it's hard tro be optimistic about ever changing big gov't and getting it back or even close to how it should be

Just like I said, "Them against Us". Your entire response is based on your ideology, political disposition, and assumption that I'm a Democrat.
You did not deliver an objective response, whereas I did. Therefore, the way that you perceived my response is that I referred to you as a
"neocon". You said it at least twice. More them against us; in other words, I'm against you.

No my response was to clear up your
misunderstanding of my original post. I shall re-iterate it again for you. As simple as I can: (Oddly enough these used to be tenets of Democrats
before the old right, if you can believe that)

Old (right) conservative beliefs held, specifically that of the Taft Conservativism.

1) A fundamental belief in laissez-faire in business (No bail-outs, no government interference, nor subsidies nor tariffs, minimal to no regulation
of ANY TyPE)

2) non-interventionists foreign policy. (i.e. just like in Laissez-faire no interference in this political arena either)

These two core fundamental beliefs are congruent with each other since a small state is also equated with a small state abroad as well. Having this
small STATE, means minimal taxes to fund said STATE.

This is the complete opposite from the NEO/ or New type of Conservativisms that we see NOW. Where did this new type of conservativism come from and
how have we been slowly led to accept its political ideas and reject that of the OLD RIGHT conservativism is contrary to YOUR ENTIRE RANT and is VERY
IMPORTANT. Because I have made the distinction of the Parties excepted NEO Vs. Paleo.

My approach to the political analysis was quite objective since I pointed out the distinction between the two. Your initial post as much as you'd
like to claim as being OBJECTIVE is clearly NOT, since you took the position of most Conservatives as being and I will quote:

...ignorant..[and that a]..major percentage of the conservative base were xenophobic, prejudiced, racist, and held fundamentalist religious views.

If this is not a major generality of the entire Conservative party being made-up of ignorant, bigots, and prejudicial hatred for those of other
religion, than I don't know what is. Besides accusing most if not all Conservatives of sharing these traits you also by de fato accuse the entire
American public of the same, since Nixon, Reagan, Daddy Bush and W. were all elected, by the American people and some of these idiots were elected
TWICE.

Just because Hitler at one time led the German people does not equate the entire German people as evil, racists, and genocidal maniacs. What it does
say, however is that a few EVIL people can manipulate, twist and perverse power for their benefit at the expense of the many. Furthermore this also
makes the case to prevent such evil deeds from ever occurring by limiting the size and scope of government. Contrary to what most people think, large
government will inevitably lead to despotism, death, and degradation, no matter if its initial intent was to do GOOD.

Now you can say that the neoconservative movement came about out of some types of historical leftist ideology, but leftist ideology does not
necessarily equate with liberalism or the Democratic Party, any more than rightist ideology necessarily equates with conservatism and the Republican
Party.

This maybe true, but notice my post was limited to recent history. I did not call for the Democrats to be Jeffersonian democrats, if that
were the case they would be more conservatives than the current batch over at the republicans. Regardless I limited my scope and reasoning to reflect
recent 20th century political-ideological philosophy.

However, "neoconservatism" as it exists today in America bears many Italian fascist principles. Militarism, nationalism, corporatism,
anti-liberalism. The movement promotes that idea of perpetual war by instigating conflict under preemptive doctrine. Demanding compliance and
submission through threat of force, rather than resolution through diplomacy. Bush's message that patriots do not question and challenge government
under his authority; "You're either with us or against us." Then there's the undoubted support of the military-industrial complex, the Military
Commissions Act of 2006, the Patriot Act, and Bush's secret executive order authorizing domestic spying by the NSA.

Ok...I don't disagree.

The fact of the matter is that you do not concede that you are in fault in any way to the demise of your party or politics or ideology.

I thought I made that clear. I pointed out to the Republican party losing its way and has no one else to blame but REPUBLICANS, and their
NEWLY adopted form of Conservativism, which rejects OLD principals. And that in order to revitalize itself it needed to dump the current platform and
replace it with the old established doctrine.

You blame neoconservatives, you blame liberals, you blame competing ideologies, but you don't blame yourself for taking part in the neocon agenda.

You limit your scope here in who is to blame, again this type of convervativism was bought by the ENTIRE American people for eight years,
and is only now being rejected. The conservatives are no more culpable than the American people as a whole are.

That does not mean that we Old Conservatives knew the extent of the extremism and fever with which these Neoconservatives would rain down upon the
American people, no more so than the ENTIRE AMERICAN people were aware. In other words Hitler took control and he is culpable for his actions but to
blame the entire German people for his actions is ridiculous.

I put forward the question that if the entire American people reject this philosophical stance, than is it not worth reassessing?

The only thing that I would admit that the OLD RIGHT is culpable of is that we did not voice our concerns LOUD enough to reject these NEW COMERS into
the party when they did so early on. Even when we began, it was too late, that is why many conservatives have left the party...and many more so
continue now.

And if that is true, what have you personally done beyond flag waving to offset the neocon agenda?

Well, since you've asked. I'm a firm believer of division of labor. Some people are good at marching, others are good at public
speaking, while others like to write to their congressman. I speak with my money. I personally have donated to the Ron Paul movement extensively and
continue to do so. In fact I wrote-him in.

I presented examples of perceived victimization that the neocons took advantage of in the conservative base. (It was not a comparison of liberal
versus conservative perceived victimization, as you made it out to be.) Once the neoconservatives were successful with that, the GOP as a whole
backed them. And they used their leverage in the House and Senate to bully Democrats into voting for their policies. Where was the movement within
the conservative and GOP mass that sought to offset the neoconservative agenda? Why was it so easy for the neoconservatives to win so many minds, so
quickly?

Good question, but this question should be posed to the entire American public as well. It takes a while for people in general to see the
errors in their ways. One step is to focus on how the error was committed; of which I did. That's the reason for the original post, the next step
is to define what ...is/was CONSERVATIVE as opposed to what it CURRENTLY MEANS.

You make it seem as if a sizable and influential portion of the conservative base and GOP held the traditional notions of conservative ideology
previous to the neoconservative infiltration.

Yes, it did exist before Nixon came to power. Hence, you have two clearly defined defenitions of Conservativism, and Neoconservativism, or
new conservatives. His administration laid the foundation for Neoconservativism. He was a spend, spend, off the gold standard type of president.

If that were true, why were the neocons so successful in usurping those ideals?

This I did not say. Now you are putting words in my mouth. I said the old right has existed always has been there, but has been slowly replaced with
NEW CONSERVATIVISM which has transformed and has set the agenda for the Party.

If this were the case then, the Neoconservative platform would have never come to power.

If you are asking WHY did the republican party change? THEN that's another question altogether. This is a difficult and complex question to answer,
and despite what you think...that the answer MUST BE that people within the Party are just racist and prejudice and easily manipulated is too cavalier
and simple minded answer. This sort of answer is usually reserved for the lazy crank lacking any intellectual integrity in researching for answers to
complex questions, and is an answer that I never claimed to know. My post only points to how we got here, and how to correct the problem. If you
want the WHY, then you will probably have to seek that answer elsewhere, rather than looking for it in a UFO BB.

I submitted that it was because of the conservative and GOP mindset. And that mindset was expressed in the mutually shared "them against us" ethos.
Also, the self-righteousness of conservatives and the GOP made them vulnerable to the neoconservatives. The neo-conservatives believe that they are
right, and that those who are against them are wrong; that anything that is different from the ideals that they hold are wrong. Many conservatives
and members of the GOP believe the same thing.

Many but not all. You are going about it all wrong here, instead of focusing on the WHY which is your CONSTANT theme, which by the way reveals your
natural contempt and ignorance for that matter of CONSERVATIVSM in general and its history in particular of the OLD right,(which stood for personal
liberty, and coincides with choices be it in business or individual) you should stay on topic and focus on how to put back conservativism on track.

But that's not your aim here is it? Your initial post was done so in order to dampen what happened and whitewash what I stated was the difference
between the two types of conservativism and how they are apposed to each other. Instead your aim is to spout or insinuate in-so-many words that
Neoconservatism has always existed...that we HAVE ALWAYS BEEN NEOCONSERVATIVES since the dawn of time...that it has been our POLITICAL IDEOLOGY TO
BEGIN WITH and the reason for it is because we are naturally prone to being ignorant, homophobic, bigots, and sexists, easily manipulated that lacked
an open mind to new ideas.

You blame neoconservatives, you blame liberals, you blame competing ideologies, but you don't blame yourself for taking part in the neocon agenda.

You limit your scope here in who is to blame, again this type of convervativism was bought by the ENTIRE American people for eight years,
and is only now being rejected. The conservatives are no more culpable than the American people as a whole are.

Only now being rejected ? In neither 00 or 04 did W get an overwhelming
vote from the American people. You are reaching now. You can't blame the Democrats, Greens, independents that voted against Bush for anything.

You had me believing that you knew what you were talking about; now I'm not so sure!

You blame neoconservatives, you blame liberals, you blame competing ideologies, but you don't blame yourself for taking part in the neocon agenda.

You limit your scope here in who is to blame, again this type of convervativism was bought by the ENTIRE American people for eight years,
and is only now being rejected. The conservatives are no more culpable than the American people as a whole are.

Only now being rejected ? In neither 00 or 04 did W get an overwhelming
vote from the American people. You are reaching now. You can't blame the Democrats, Greens, independents that voted against Bush for anything.

You had me believing that you knew what you were talking about; now I'm not so sure!

[edit on 8-11-2008 by whaaa]

He got the votes he needed to be declared president didn't he? Obviously enough people got out and voted for him. Granted the 2000 election was
decided by the Supreme Court, but surely the Democrats could have beaten him in 2004 if he was so loathed, could they not?

My point being that it TOOK four more years of Neoconservativsm for the people to get it through their THICK skulls that maybe it was unwise to vote
for MCsame/McRage this time around.

Although I do agree with much of what the OP said, the solution is not so simple any more. True, the conservative movement has been sacrificed, so
that in reality, the two parties have more in common than not. However, there is a genie that has been let out of the bottle, and the bottle is about
to be broken so that the genie cannot be captured again. That "genie" happens to be the illegal alien issue. Both Obama and McCain supported "paths
to citizenship" for illegals, which as we know, really means, slap them on the wrist, give them a fine (which Obama will give them the money to pay),
wait a few months, and then grant them citizenship. Once that happens, you now have 40,000,000 more people eager to vote for the great emancipator,
the Democratic Party, since it will happen on their watch. The numbers get worse and worse, as those illegals, in general, have a greater birth rate.
Most experts say that by 2050, non-Hispanic, non-black citizens will be in the minority. When you look at who voted for Obama and the Democrats, it is
apparent, that the "illegals path to citizenship" is a guaranteed recipe for a stranglehold on government for the Democrats and liberals.

I am an Independent and voted for Obama. I feel he is the best one we had to pick from in this election. Don't get me wrong, I am proud to have
cast that vote. But......all the comments on Ronald Reagen, well, that was the best President we have had in my lifetime. Great thread Flagged and
Stared

You are right, but the geopolitical situation is much more complicated than America simply trying to be respected again in the eyes of the
international community. That is a very important aspect of American geopolitics in general, yes. And President Bush has not exactly helped this
country after 8 years of arrogance, cronyism and overall negligence.

We have Russia pissed off at the U.S. over the European missile shield issue. We have anti-american Russian leadership that is selling military
weapons, munitions, supplies, and technology to countries like Iran and Venezuela like they're goin out of style. We have Russia conducting military
exercises in Venezuelan waters (with warships capable of carrying nuclear weapons). God knows what North Korea is up to. We have terrorism resurgent
in Afghanistan, and we can't forget that Bin Laden is still at large!

National security is not just about securing our country by regaining and re-earning trust throughout the international community. Obama is going to
be tested just like every other president who has come before. he has an opportunity to become one of the greatest presidents in American history
here. Look at the problems his administration is going to have to deal with. Many of these problems are not going to be fixed even long after Obama
is out of office. But as far as national security is concerned, Obama is facing some huge challenges already and noone is really sure if he can
deliver on all his promises or how he will do it.

My overall point is this..
There is a time to be nicy nicy with foreign countries and there is also a time to flex your muscles. This isn't all about the Obama administration
saying "I'm sorry about that Bush guy. Hopefully we can be friends again"... The situation degrades every day Bush continues to be in office and
noone seems to be doing anything about it, nor is it clear whether or not doing anything would help at this point.

We have so many enemies that they are probably unofficially joining forces as we speak.. (and they probably already have if they are exchanging
military technology and munitions at will). Venezuela didn't even have the funds to buy those arms from Russia. Russia basically gave them money to
buy all of that stuff (more or less just to make it look somewhat like a legitimate exchange).

Given the financial situation we are in right now, this country is more vulnerable than it has been since before WW2. One biological or nuclear
attack on American soil and I guarantee you we would lose our collective $#17. And what would happen to the economy then? Respect in the
international community is one thing.. But this is no time for our leadership to be turning into impotent pushovers. I THINK Obama can prove himself
a good president. I'm just not completely sure about the rest of America. And I, myself, hope that Obama doesn't get caught up trying to do so
much at once that he loses sight of common sense and common decency. The last thing we need right now is another war for crying out loud.. But we
need to be prepared to deal with all of these geopolitical fallouts regardless. Because if things continue the way they are now under Bush, Obama is
more and more screwed by the minute.

1) A fundamental belief in laissez-faire in business (No bail-outs, no government interference, nor subsidies nor tariffs, minimal to no
regulation of ANY TyPE)

Then nothing that the neocons are doing that has created our economic collapse, and turned the public against the current administration, is against
your beliefs.

Government has a fundamental role in regulating business in order to create competitive, efficient markets. Without regulation, corruption takes over
and criminals wind up running our corporations and financial institutions. Thus we are lead to the financial crisis that we are in, and bailouts are
unavoidable to prevent a total collapse of the system. The answer is to prosecute the criminals, and restore the stolen funds to their rightful
owners.

The government needs to enforce the law to prevent fraudulent business practices, refusal to honor contracts, use of clauses to rob associates, false
advertising, posioning of the water, air, and land, unsafe practices that endanger human lives. It shouldn't come down to who can hire the best
army of lawyers.

If we are not going to enforce laws against businesses, then we might as well stop enforcing all laws. Some con artist rips you off, you hunt him
down and kill him, and then we would have a true laissez-faire system. If businesses are allowed to operate beyond the law, then so should the rest
of us. In fact, a little of this type of anarchy might be needed to restore a balance in our economy.

Of course, you refuse to admit that Reagan is the father of the neocons.

Then nothing that the neocons are doing that has created our economic collapse, and turned the public against the current administration, is against
your beliefs.

Wrong. Oh boy...Not this "the MARKET" is the cause of our problems, rubbish....First of all our current financial problems was a due to government
meddling in the free-markets. Particularly in the price of interest rates. A central bank/Fed has no business dictating interest rates, hence you
have the problem with artificial manipulation. If you push interest rates to 1% what did you expect was going to happen? Nobody would borrow?
People acted RATIONALLY to IRRATIONAL interest rates!!

Having a FED is as good as having a central planing body, dictating what the price of money should be, hence it is not capitalism.

Then we have the government further distorting WHO should be lent through the "Community Reinvestment Act" this further pushes the Free-Market to
make bad loans to people that shouldn't have-wouldn't have been lent money since they WOULD be considered TOO risky if the government had not
coerced the free-market, then we further have government created entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which make these loans MARKETABLE by buying them
and reselling them.

ALL of these problems we have today, IS DUE TO MARKET INTERFERENCE BY THE GOVERNMENT!!

Government has a fundamental role in regulating business in order to create competitive, efficient markets.

This nonsense again huh? Government AGAIN REGULATES to limit entry, and thus LIMIT COMPETITION. LIMITING COMPETITION DOES NOT CREATE
EFFICIENT MARKETS, IT HAMPERS THEM.

Without regulation, corruption takes over and criminals wind up running our corporations and financial institutions.

If companies are corrupt then they naturally will fail. Good companies are not in the business of expropriating from business owners for
their own private use, and even if so there are criminal laws which would prosecute this abuse. Government regulators cannot and do not the
capability to read every single accounting transaction made by every single business, thus LIKE I'VE SAID THE PRIMARY REGULATOR OF INDUSTRIES are the
investors, bond holders, or owners that punish this type of bad behavior. So contrary to what you think, most regulation is self-imposed and is
privately done, and not done by bureaucrats.

Thus we are lead to the financial crisis that we are in, and bailouts are unavoidable to prevent a total collapse of the system.

Bull...business fail and that's part of capitalism. What's not capitalism is when bad business managers or owners are rewarded and
propped-up by taxpayer money. If the U.S. auto manufacturers fail, its because management has done a poor job of running the business, it does not
mean these companies will go away. What it does mean, is that if they file for bankruptcy new owners will come along buy up the assets, fire
management and re-negotiate bad labor contracts in order to streamline the business and make it profitable again.

The answer is to prosecute the criminals, and restore the stolen funds to their rightful owners.

There is a difference between regulation and prosecution. If a crime was committed by a business then it naturally falls under our FRAUD
laws. The business or management that has broken these laws that have long been in the books are thus prosecutable.

Regulation however has nothing to do with PROTECTING the business owners or making business profitable. Regulations adds costs to doing business as
well as make it more difficulty for entry in markets.

The government needs to enforce the law to prevent fraudulent business practices, refusal to honor contracts, use of clauses to rob associates, false
advertising, posioning of the water, air, and land, unsafe practices that endanger human lives. It shouldn't come down to who can hire the best
army of lawyers.

Everything you said is already covered by private property rights and enforcement of contracts. Think of it this way if you sign a contract
to purchase a home with an ARM and you no longer can pay for it...THEN SHOULDN'T YOU LOSE your home?

Of course you'll probably say....NO NO...DON'T ENFORCE THIS contract.

Or how about a private business owner wanting to have a bar where people could smoke....HERE again...you liberals will chime in...NO NO....HE HAS NO
RIGHT TO SAY WHO AND WHAT HE COULD DO IN HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS.

Liberals are notorious for contradictions.

By the way, Pollution, human life, false advertising, is all covered under property rights.

Also, only the NEOCONS AND SOCIALISTS are clamoring for MARKET intervention. How is my position in line with that of those two groups?

Aren't YOU the one that is in favor of "Bail-outs", therefore it is YOU that is standing with the NEOCONS OR SOCIALISTS, NOT I. (Again, it goes to
show that socialism is marginally indistinguishable from it's cousin Neoconservativism.) Bush, Obama, Mcain all wanted the Bail-Outs....and still
are pushing for more Bail-Outs.

If we are not going to enforce laws against businesses, then we might as well stop enforcing all laws.

You just need to enforce property rights, and contracts. Everything else can pretty much self-regulate.

Some con artist rips you off, you hunt him down and kill him, and then we would have a true laissez-faire system.

Nonsense, under property rights if you have been duped, or something was done to you or property the person who committed said acts has an
obligation to compensate you.

If businesses are allowed to operate beyond the law, then so should the rest of us. In fact, a little of this type of anarchy might be needed to
restore a balance in our economy.

Yes like the balance we have now!! Thank god we have big-government colluding with big-corporations bailing out business and banks left and right,
wasting taxpayer dollars, on unsound businesses. Printing money we don't have increasing deficits, further regulations which will only increase the
stranglehold of the large corporations we have now.

You make a great case for the STATUS QUO, a position in the BUSH OR OBAMA cabinet regime suits you well. One thing is for certain...capitalism, is
not something all three of YOU GUYS LIKE OR WANT...instead it's corporatism, subsidies, and protectionism...is what ALL three of you are in favor
of.

Of course, you refuse to admit that Reagan is the father of the neocons.

I don't know what you're getting at here. Your attempt to somehow hurt my feeling by bringing this scumbags name up is laughable. This guy
is king of the morons, he was not a CONSERVATIVE he was an INTERVENTIONIST, AND ran up deficits. Like I said the Neoconservative movement started
with NIXON and proceeded to spread from there...like a virus. Sorry to burst your bubble, Reagan is no hero of mine nor conservativism.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.